Group items tagged

Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."

Some claim that nuclear energy has become safer and that the public is more accepting of it because it releases less emissions into the air compared to coal. As for the benefits of nuclear energy, Schacherl has strong views on this too. "Nuclear energy has no benefits to the public, not even in lower CO2 emissions when the full nuclear cycle is taken into effect. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and the only benefit is to the nuclear industry itself. The claim that the third generation reactors are safer is just a joke, since none of them have ever been built and for the ACR1000, not even the design is completed. How can you claim they are safer when the safety analysis showing the probability of a nuclear accident has not even been completed?" Schacherl is emphatic that nuclear energy be phased out and replaced by renewable energy that is safer, more cost-effective and sustainable. Schacherl also encourages the public to do their homework since there is a lot of misinformation out there. "The provincial government's nuclear panel report was full of misinformation. Albertans should do their own research on nuclear. The nuclear industry provides very little solid, factual information. They just ask us to trust them."

Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.

Senators urged to reject choice for nuclear commission Anti-nuclear groups are fighting the Obama administration's nomination of a pro-Yucca Mountain nuclear industry insider to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Oct. 9, President Barack Obama nominated Bill Magwood to the commission, which is charged with regulating and licensing all civilian use of nuclear materials, including the stalled nuclear waste dump proposed for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Critics of the choice say Magwood has a history of nuclear boosterism that is incompatible with the role of a regulator. He also has repeatedly been quoted as saying Yucca Mountain is the best solution to the nation's nuclear waste storage issues, most recently in May.

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

The purpose of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is to encourage the growth of nuclear power worldwide. "It was a Bush initiative that Canada joined in December 2007 without any debate in parliament," explains Schacherl. An article printed in The Toronto Star on November 29, 2007 called on Canada to join a controversial nuclear partnership. The plan proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the U.S. since the 1970s for security reasons. It was announced in this article that Canada would be a part of the GNEP. Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada insisted that "no matter which side of the nuclear debate you fall on - pro or anti - everyone should be able to agree this is something which deserves public scrutiny." Schacherl adds, "One of the principles of the GNEP partnership is that those countries who sell uranium will agree to take back the spent fuel. The United States, who initiated the partnership, benefits the most as it has a huge nuclear waste problem. Yucca Mountain, where long-term storage was once planned, has now been shelved for a number of reasons including community opposition. Countries such as Canada clearly don't benefit as they will take

Last week MIT hosted a panel of nuclear power industry experts to address nuclear waste recycling and disposal options. Considered by many analysts to be the chief barrier to building a new generation of nuclear power plants, the debate around what to do with high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants continues to be the industry's hot button issue. Experts suggest that the current system of storing waste in dry casks on nuclear power sites is still a viable option for several decades to come, but others point to the fact that the 104 US nuclear reactors will generate over 105,000 tons of waste in their life cycle, which would require more than 1,700 acres to store the highly radioactive material. With the Obama administration's recent decision to stop plans for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear storage facility, the question of where to store nuclear waste continues to loom large.

Advocates say a nuclear power "renaissance" can solve global energy problems, but construction of new reactors in the U.S. faces a number of barriers, not the least of which is nuclear waste. Delaware Senator Thomas Carper, who actively supports nuclear power, hosted a panel of experts on Monday to discuss nuclear waste at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT on Monday also updated its 2003 study on how nuclear power can play a role in reducing carbon emissions (click for PDF). The four panelists--executive director of the upcoming MIT Nuclear Fuels Cycle study Charles Forsberg, MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering Andrew Kadak, Harvard University associate professor and proliferation expert Matthew Bunn, and MIT Energy Initiative director Ernest Moniz--all favored more nuclear power.

Abstract: America needs a clean, safe, and sustainable energy source. Nuclear power could be part of the solution -- with the right set of free-market reforms. Congress, the nuclear industry, and many Americans agree that reform of U.S. nuclear policies is necessary, but cannot agree on what those reforms should look like. The nuclear provision in the Senate's new Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a nice nod to nuclear power, but leaves the waters muddied. Heritage Foundation energy experts Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris provide some clarity.

Abstract: America needs a clean, safe, and sustainable energy source. Nuclear power could be part of the solution -- with the right set of free-market reforms. Congress, the nuclear industry, and many Americans agree that reform of U.S. nuclear policies is necessary, but cannot agree on what those reforms should look like. The nuclear provision in the Senate's new Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is a nice nod to nuclear power, but leaves the waters muddied. Heritage Foundation energy experts Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris provide some clarity.

The nuclear power industry, virtually dormant for decades, is hoping that concerns about global warming will bring its resurgence. Wisconsin, which has not built a new nuclear reactor since 1974, got a taste of the well-orchestrated pro-nuclear campaign last week at a legislative hearing stacked with nuclear power apologists, including two former critics of nuclear power who now support it as part of a solution to the converging challenges of climate change and energy shortages. Times have changed, the converts say. One of them, Patrick Moore, who also wrote the March 12 op-ed "Put nuclear energy to work," assured legislators that nuclear power was "one of the safest technologies that has ever been invented by human beings." (Moore is paid by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, funded by the nuclear industry.)

"The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is opposing President Obama's nomination of William Magwood for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Along with two other of the President's nominees to the NRC, Mr. Magwood will come before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a confirmation hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, February 9, 2010. In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a plan to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors. POGO does not take a stance on nuclear power, but does strongly believe that the regulatory body that licenses and inspects nuclear power reactors should be independent, active, and unconflicted. Mr. Magwood does not satisfy those key criteria. "As a result of our investigation and given his more than a dozen years promoting nuclear power, we do not believe Mr.Magwood has the independence from the nuclear power industry, nor the security oversight background, to regulate it," said Danielle Brian, Executive Director, POGO. "We don't care if he is pro-nuclear. The current NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko and the Republican nominee Bill Ostendorff, are pro-nuclear, but we believe they have a demonstrated record of being independent and serious about oversight.""

"A fiefdom of nuclear experts at Tokyo Electric Power Co. has survived past crises and appears likely to withstand fallout from the controversy at the embattled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. The "nuclear village," as it is known, has maintained its independence for decades, virtually shielded from other parts of the company by the specialized nature of its operations. The "village" is headed by Executive Vice President Sakae Muto, 60, general manager of the Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Division. His predecessor, Ichiro Takekuro, 65, holds the title of "fellow," who assists the president as the top nuclear expert. Muto, Takekuro and others attended a meeting on April 17 of the combined government-TEPCO headquarters in regards to the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Earlier the same day, TEPCO announced a road map to bring reactors crippled by the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake to cold shutdown. "

The push for cap-and-trade climate change legislation is giving nuclear power a new half-life. As an air-pollution-free energy source, nuclear could solve a lot of problems - if it can get past the ones that sidelined it decades ago. The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in Russia turned many against nuclear. No new plants have been opened in the U.S. in more than two decades. The proposed nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain may have its funding cut off by Washington. But there are signs the opposition is waning thanks to cap-and-trade. The Environmental Protection Agency says that since nuclear creates no carbon emissions, expanding it would make it easier to meet carbon-reduction goals.

The push for cap-and-trade climate change legislation is giving nuclear power a new half-life. As an air-pollution-free energy source, nuclear could solve a lot of problems - if it can get past the ones that sidelined it decades ago. The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in Russia turned many against nuclear. No new plants have been opened in the U.S. in more than two decades. The proposed nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain may have its funding cut off by Washington. But there are signs the opposition is waning thanks to cap-and-trade. The Environmental Protection Agency says that since nuclear creates no carbon emissions, expanding it would make it easier to meet carbon-reduction goals.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout. The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference. The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout. The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference. The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.

The pro-nuclear Department of Energy is set to offer this month the first of nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees to a nuclear industry that hasn't built a plant since the 1970s or raised any money to do so in years. But although the industry is seeking to cash in on global warming concerns with $100 billion in proposed loan guarantees, environmentalists, scientists and federal investigators are warning that lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the nation's aging 104 nuclear plants has led to near-meltdowns along with other health and safety failings since Three Mile Island - including what some critics say is a flawed federal health study apparently designed to conceal cancer risks near nuclear plants.

The pro-nuclear Department of Energy is set to offer this month the first of nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees to a nuclear industry that hasn't built a plant since the 1970s or raised any money to do so in years. But although the industry is seeking to cash in on global warming concerns with $100 billion in proposed loan guarantees, environmentalists, scientists and federal investigators are warning that lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the nation's aging 104 nuclear plants has led to near-meltdowns along with other health and safety failings since Three Mile Island - including what some critics say is a flawed federal health study apparently designed to conceal cancer risks near nuclear plants.

Anti-nuclear and pro-green energy grassroots groups came together to form the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta (CNFA) in late 2008. The consolidation of concerned Albertans and organizations from across Alberta has a common goal: to keep Alberta nuclear free. The congregation of all Coalition members is to have one strong collective voice to achieve this goal. The CNFA was formed because of the rumored nuclear reactors that Bruce Power will be installing in Northern Alberta if Bill 50 is passed and the massive transmission project is completed. "Bill 50 in its present state will allow the provincial government to arbitrarily leapfrog past environment concerns and public consultations in implementing rapid expansion of the transmission system in Alberta. The legislation effectively eliminates the public's involvement in the decision making process and seriously damages landowners' ability to reject transmission towers from being constructed on their land," explains Chris Hooymans of the CNFA, representative for Calgary, Central and Southern Alberta.

Anti-nuclear and pro-green energy grassroots groups came together to form the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta (CNFA) in late 2008. The consolidation of concerned Albertans and organizations from across Alberta has a common goal: to keep Alberta nuclear free. The congregation of all Coalition members is to have one strong collective voice to achieve this goal. The CNFA was formed because of the rumored nuclear reactors that Bruce Power will be installing in Northern Alberta if Bill 50 is passed and the massive transmission project is completed. "Bill 50 in its present state will allow the provincial government to arbitrarily leapfrog past environment concerns and public consultations in implementing rapid expansion of the transmission system in Alberta. The legislation effectively eliminates the public's involvement in the decision making process and seriously damages landowners' ability to reject transmission towers from being constructed on their land," explains Chris Hooymans of the CNFA, representative for Calgary, Central and Southern Alberta.

"The debate over nuclear power in recent months has revolved around taxpayer backed loan guarantees for new nuclear projects. Not only has the President announced $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for a two-reactor project in Burke County, Georgia, his budget proposal includes tripling the nuclear loan guarantee program from $18.5 billion to over $54 billion. Unfortunately, some groups have used this debate to disguise their anti-nuclear agenda in anti-loan guarantee rhetoric. The basic construct of their argument is that nuclear energy is so risky and so expensive that using government backed financing subjects the taxpayer to unreasonable risk. The problem is that they often not only misrepresent facts about loan guarantees and what risks they pose, but also about nuclear energy broadly to make their case. Misrepresenting the facts not only undermines the legitimacy of their argument but takes away from a very important debate over whether or not loan guarantees are an appropriate tool for financing new nuclear (or any other energy source) projects."

Senator Voinovich brags that he introduced 2002 legislation that continued the Price Anderson indemnity for the nuclear power industry, thus allowing further nuclear power development. The Nuclear team of the Ohio Sierra Club is organizing a rally to challenge Senator George Voinovich's support for the expansion of nuclear power in Ohio. At a time when Ohioans are already reeling from multiple economic blows and environmental devastation, a ramping up of nuclear power will only leave the state with more contamination, more sickness and more debt. Like others in the pro-nuclear lobby, Voinovich has tried pasting a happy face on nuclear power by claiming that nukes are "clean, green, safe and cheap" and that they offer a solution to the global climate crisis. But the truth lies in the opposite direction.

"The future of nuclear energy will have stiff competition with competing green renewable and future novel technologies that have a higher approval rating with the public. There is an especially strong grassroots pro sustainable movement in Calgary that doesn't involve the nuclear energy equation. The question whether the public's disapproval of nuclear energy will force governments that are part of the GNEP to reconsider is likely not a scenario that will come to fruition. With an increasingly energy hungry world, it looks as if nuclear power is here to stay on a local and global level. In time, engineers and scientists may solve the nuclear waste issue and come up with new ways to appease the skeptics who are pro sustainable energy that doesn't involve nuclear. "

In this third segment of my review of William Tucker's outstanding book Terrestrial Energy, I consider Tucker's assessment of available opportunities to solve the nuclear waste problem by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Recycling Opportunities If U.S. nuclear power plants were to resume reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, as is done in France and other nations, only 2 to 3 percent of the material now scheduled to be stored at the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository would have to be stored there, and the whole nuclear waste problem would disappear. After reprocessing, the total unusable portion of three full years of nuclear power production can be stored indefinitely in a dry cask about four times the size of a telephone booth.

Nuclear energy is one of the most effective ways to reach growing energy needs, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and create jobs, three energy leaders said today during a three-day summit to address the economic future of the nation. "A nuclear renaissance is under way," DTE Energy Chairman and CEO Anthony F. Earley Jr. told a group of energy leaders during the National Summit. "Nuclear energy has to play a crucial role in meeting our country's growing energy needs while reducing carbon emissions." With the nation's aging power facilities -- most average 30 years old and retirement expected between 40-60 years -- now is the time to reshape the energy mix of power facilities to include more nuclear plants, the energy leaders said. Advertisement "Every study that has been done says you can't come anywhere near where what you want to be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions without a large nuclear growth not only in the U.S., but worldwide," said Martin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

A new report calls for a permanent solution for the nation's safe storage of nuclear waste because the push for clean energy has placed renewed emphasis on nuclear power and the waste that goes with it. "Revisiting America's Nuclear Waste Policy" notes that 2,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel are generated by U.S. reactors each year, to add to the more than 70,000 tons of spent fuel and other high-level waste already being stored at 121 sites in 39 states. Moreover, 20 companies have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 26 new nuclear reactors in the next decade. "With the needed expansion of nuclear power, the amount of used fuel produced will also increase," the report said. "The time is ripe for a permanent solution." The report, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, notes that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not the "only" solution, but asks if not there, where?

Turns out Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall is battling environmentalists and public fear of nuclear meltdowns on his new pro-nuke bill less than he's battling the lingering stigma that Homer Simpson and his scofflaw boss Mr. Burns generated at their Springfield nuclear power plant. homer simpson Where does this bit of wisdom on the hurdles facing the nuclear industry revival come from? From the staid Wall Street Journal, which Tuesday blogged about a Canadian professor who's been talking up the Simpson factor on north-of-the-border radio shows in the wake of the regulatory rejection of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.

Turns out Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall is battling environmentalists and public fear of nuclear meltdowns on his new pro-nuke bill less than he's battling the lingering stigma that Homer Simpson and his scofflaw boss Mr. Burns generated at their Springfield nuclear power plant. homer simpson Where does this bit of wisdom on the hurdles facing the nuclear industry revival come from? From the staid Wall Street Journal, which Tuesday blogged about a Canadian professor who's been talking up the Simpson factor on north-of-the-border radio shows in the wake of the regulatory rejection of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.